Wednesday, 25 January 2012

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) called on NYPD police commissioner Ray Kelly to resign today, after it was revealed that an "anti-Muslim" film had been shown to over a thousand police officers in the force as part of their training.

ICNA did not mention, of course, that the "Islamophobic" film in question, The Third Jihad, is narrated by a Muslim, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, or that it begins with a disclaimer that reads: "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical." Nor did they mention the fact that the film's conclusions were based on solid documentary evidence accepted as compelling by the judge during the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial which began in 2007, and led to the conviction of the defendants on all counts.

There is good reason for this. ICNA itself, in its 2010 Handbook, openly admits to being the American branch of a global Islamic movement that seeks to establish "the united Muslim Ummah [community] in a united Islamic state, governed by an elected khalifah [caliph] in accordance with the laws of shari’ah." It lays out a gradualist plan for achieving these objectives, citing the importance of the Qur'an and Sunnah as the theocratic pillars of legislation and guidance in all areas of life. It also praises and recommends the works of, among many others, Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood's leading modern spokesman and spiritual guide.

So what is ICNA's motivation in attempting to punish and silence Mr. Kelly? The Third Jihad uses documentary evidence to demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood is engaged, in its own words, in "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their
hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's
religion is made victorious over all other religions." It shows how the organisation and its front groups have striven to implement this plan in America in recent years.

The Islamic Circle of North America supports the Brotherhood, and is itself striving for the same totalitarian goal. Therefore, where there are people who are trying to raise awareness of these issues, it seeks to shut them up and shut them down. It stands a much greater chance of succeeding in its mission to subsume America within a collectivist global caliphate if all those who seek to stop it are gagged, muted and defenseless in the path of its assault.

UPDATE: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is also calling for Kelly to resign. CAIR is named in the Muslim Brotherhood internal document linked above - along with ICNA - as one of "our [i.e., the MB's] organizations and the organizations of our friends".

Sunday, 22 January 2012

Ealier this month, a federal appeals court unanimously upheld a ruling that blocked implementation of an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering what is broadly described as Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.”

The court concluded that by "singling out Islam for unfavorable treatment" in state courts, the law likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The court further explained:

“Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted . . . that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”

One of the problems with the many anti-sharia laws that are being put forward on the state level in the US is that many of their proponents seem unable to put forward a coherent case in support of them. For example, while it may be true that Oklahoma is not one of the documented states in which sharia has been applied in an American court (there are 23 states where this has in fact occurred, by the way), the proponents of the bill could have pointed to other examples from around the country, and warned about the seriousness of considering the possibility that such a thing could happen, and acting to prevent it. But they apparently did not do this.

They should have also made the point that the anti-sharia laws are aimed at Islam's political doctrines, and so do not infringe upon the First Amendment religious rights of American Muslims in any way. But they have not done this effectively, either, and so the clueless dhimmis have ended up triumphant this time.

It is extremely telling that one of the most passionate denunciations of the court's decision that I have seen comes not from anti-jihad warriors such as Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller, but from a Muslim: Tawfik Hamid.

Hamid is an Egyptian Muslim who was formerly a member of the terrorist group Jamaah Islamiyah, and studied for a time under the tutelage of the current al-Qaeda head honcho Ayman al-Zawahiri. After renouncing the group, Hamid has become perhaps the world's foremost proponent of a tiny Islamic reform movement that seeks to fundamentally rewrite the tenets of Islam - not by denying that any problematic texts or doctrines exist, but by confronting these problems head-on and seeking to construct new understandings of Islam that challenge the mainstream interpretations that have prevailed for fourteen centuries. Unsurprisingly, in the process of engaging in this courageous exercise, he is regularly subjected to death threats by others who label themselves "moderate Muslims".

In a recent article, Hamid brilliantly skewers the critics of the anti-sharia bill. Below are some lengthy extracts from his piece, which make plain the importance of these issues, and highlight how vital it is that true moderate Muslim reformers such as Hamid are supported and encouraged throughout the Islamic world:

The above comments about Sharia law do not properly depict how controversial the risks to society would be if considered. Fundamental principles of Sharia law that are not only approved but also unchallenged in Islamic Jurisprudence include the killing Muslims who convert from Islam to another faith, the stoning of adulterers, and the killing of gays.

Furthermore, it justifies polygamy, pedophilia, and beating women to discipline them. If the judges of the Oklahoma court knew that the basic principles of Sharia law promote such inhumane and derogatory acts and still lifted the ban on it, it would subsequently end in catastrophe.

Not only would it be disastrous to our society but it would also show a level of ignorance within the U.S. judicial system.

If one day Awad wanted to kill another Muslim who converted to Christianity (or any other faith), would the Oklahoma court uphold his ‘constitutional right’ to practice Sharia Law and kill that Muslim — as Sharia law dictates — or will they uphold the constitutional right of the other Muslim to practice his freedom of religion?

In other words, should the court in Oklahoma protect such constitutional rights that arouse criminal activity (an example being the killing of apostates) but not protect such constitutional rights that allow citizens to freely select their faith and convert out of Islam without being threatened? The court MUST explain this discrimination in respecting one constitutional right over another.

Courts must be able to find sources for Sharia Law that illustrate how it DOES NOT promote the above mentioned criminal activities. Such sources must be cited appropriately and it must be noted whether any major Islamic institution approves it. Removing the ban on Sharia Law — without showing even one single approved Sharia text that rejects the crimes mentioned above — can be seen as a form of endorsement for legalizing such criminal acts....

The judges who lifted the ban on Sharia law must explain to us how allowing a law that justifies the above mentioned crimes can fit with our “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Accepting Sharia Law that shamelessly allows killing apostates, adulterers and gays AND that promotes beating women, pedophilia and slavery is ultimately destructive to our unalienable rights.

The meeting is part of an ongoing effort by the Obama Administration to reach out to the Brotherhood after decades of shunning the movement.

These efforts are an affront to human decency and a sign once again of how poorly the "Arab Spring" (which I prefer to call the "Infidel's Winter") has been understood among the Western elites.

Almost simultaneous to Burns' visit, the MB's Supreme Leader Muhammad Badi was quoted in the Egyptian media (translation here) as saying the following:

“The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system, with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world.

"When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da’wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Banna] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life.

“The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world.”

Despite the historical reality that the caliphate has always been an aggressive, imperialist entity posing a permanent and serious threat to the non-Muslim world, some might argue that Badi's words should be taken more figuratively than literally. Perhaps a Muslim "mastership of the world" would be more a general alliance of nations sharing a common religious heritage, and wouldn't have an overly political or theocratic character, they might argue.

Not so. For as I reported here nearly a year ago, Badi is openly on record stating that the Qur'an should form the basis of the political structure of the new Egypt, while his organisation's political platform plainly advocates sharia law as the political solution to Egypt's problems.

In Badi's own words:

"The noble Koran is the constitution that sets out the laws of Islam. It is the fountainhead of all virtue and wisdom in the hearts of the believers, and it is the best [way] for the believers to become closer to Allah... The Holy Koran includes all the tenets of faith, laws of worship, principles of public good [and] legal concepts [pertaining to] this world, including duties and prohibitions, and they are for the benefit of all humanity, without distinctions of religion, [skin] color, gender, [social] status or language..."

Badi' added that the Koran must continue to be a way of life for every Muslim and his family, and that, at the state level, countries whose official religion is Islam must establish the Koran as "the basis for the constitution and the first source of legislation, the scales of justice in the courtrooms and one of the bases of the [school] curricula at all levels [of education]... All clauses of the [state] constitution which Islam and its precepts do not permit must be removed..."

In other words, barbaric, theocratic sharia law is the crux of Badi's vision of what "mastership of the world" really means.

But maybe it's a "moderate" form of sharia law, one that rejects draconian punishments and is really just like being a Rotarian? Again, very unlikely, given that the Egyptian people overwhelmingly define sharia as encompassing stonings, amputations, and denial of freedom of speech and freedom of religion - and a majority of them support the implementation of this system of governance.

Badi's description of a gradual process of Islamisation involving a "long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life," mirrors the views of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is often referred to as the "father figure" of the Brotherhood. In a recent fatwa at his OnIslam website, Qaradawi opined that "Gradualism in applying the Shari`ah is a wise requirement to follow." He has these specific recommendations:

Being a divine law, gradualism is to be followed on the political level nowadays. That is to say, gradualism is to be observed when it comes to applying the rulings of the Shari`ah in today's life when Muslims have been socially, legislatively, and culturally invaded.

If we want to establish a real Muslim society, we should not imagine that such an end can be achieved by a mere decision issued to that effect by a king or a president or a council of leaders or a parliament.

Gradualism is the means through which such an end can be fulfilled. Gradualism here refers to preparing people ideologically, psychologically, morally, and socially to accept and adopt the application of the Shari`ah in all aspects of life, and to finding lawful alternatives for the forbidden principles upon which many associations have been founded for so long.

In other words, a slow, gradual creep of sharia law into the non-Muslim psyche and society, under the noses of those who should ostensibly oppose it, so that it is achieved before most people have even realised it needed to be stopped. The MB's own words as recorded in captured internal documents reveal that this is its plan not just for Egypt, but for the West as well.

But anyway, ignore all of this. Barack Obama wants "outreach", and why would anyone disapprove of that?

Monday, 9 January 2012

The editors and journalists of the Washington Post apparently believe they can say things and that automatically makes them true.

Take this piece today, concerning the growing trend of antisemitism in post-"Arab Spring" Tunisia. It first describes the Ennahda party, which heads the country's new government, as a "moderate Islamic party", without any specific evidence to support this appellation.

The article then goes on to describe a recent incident in which videos circulated online showing crowd members - reported to be some 5000 in number - greeting Ismail Haniyeh, a top Hamas offical, at the airport in Tunis on Thursday, chanting “Kill the Jews” and “Crush the Jews.” It publishes unquestioningly the "condemnation" of Ennahda's leader Rashid al-Ghannouchi:

“Ennahda condemns these slogans which do not represent Islam’s spirit or teachings, and considers those who raised them as a marginal group,” Ghannouchi said in a statement.

Ghannouchi's words can be trusted about as much as those of a viper.

In an interview last year, Ghannouchi predicted triumphantly that the Arab Spring would lead to the "end of Israel" by 2027. He also alleges that "the Jews" are behind a global conspiracy to destroy Islam - classic Islamic antisemitic ideology, which goes back to the genesis of Islam.

And Mr. Ghannouchi has a long history of association with extremism and Palestinian terrorism. From 1988-92, the Islamic Committee for Palestine organised conferences and rallies in the United States that featured the leading lights of Islamic extremist movements throughout the world. One example of such a conference took place in Chicago from December 22-25, 1989 and featured Mr. Ghannouchi as a speaker. Its theme was “Palestine, Intifada, and Horizons of Islamic Renaissance” and other speakers included Abd Al-’Aziz Al’Awda, the “spiritual leader” of Islamic Jihad and Muhammad ‘Umar of Hizb Al-Tahrir, the Islamic Liberation Party.

In 2002, Mr. Ghannouchi co-signed a statement that said: “The bodies of the men and women of Palestine are shields against the Zionist agenda, which its greater target is to destroy the entire Islamic Ummah.” The statement was also signed by Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah and Hamas leaders - all antisemites par excellence.

Forgive us, then, if we greet his latest proclamations with little more than a contemptuous chuckle.

The WaPo article goes on to gloss over the problem and history of antisemitism in Tunisia, which goes back a long time. In recent years, it most notably came to the fore in the Ghriba synagogue bombing of 2002, in which 21 people were killed and 30 injured. More recently, in February 2011, another synagogue was torched, with some observers noting the apparent lack of interest in the attack among the police and security services. And also last year, a Muslim mob held an anti-Jewish rally outside Tunisia's main synagogue, chanting the jihadist battle-cry, "Jews wait, the army of Muhammad is coming back," and "We'll redo the battle of Khaybar" - a reference to the slaughter of a peaceful Jewish farming community by Muhammad, as recorded by his earliest biographers, during which Jewish leaders were tortured for money and their wives raped. This same battle-cry has been heard during various anti-Israel marches around the Islamic world, including among those setting sail on the "Freedom Flotilla" that would later be attacked by Israel when it tried to breach the legally justified blockade of Gaza.

The Post leaves its readers with one last obfuscation in the final sentence:

Tunisia currently has a Jewish population of 1,500 Jews, but in the 1960s there were 100,000. Most left following the 1967 war between Israel and Arab countries, and Socialist economic policies adopted by the government in the late 1960s also drove many Jewish business owners out of the country.

Aside from the sombre demographic data, this passage is extremely misleading. The Jews just "left" following the Six Day War? Why did they leave? Precisely because of Islamic antisemitic persecution.

According to historian Norman Stillman, riots that took place on June 5th, 1967, resulted in most Jewish shops being looted, and the Great Synagogue was burned and desecrated. One eyewitness remarked: "It is the unanimous opinion of Jews one talks to that if there was any doubt previously, it is quite clear now there is no future for them in Tunisia." Just prior to these events, there were approximately 23,000 Jews in Tunisia. Within a year of this rioting, there were seven or eight thousand left. Many of them had fled to France to escape the Muslim depredations.

This WaPo article is just one of many that has appeared over the last year underlining the failure of the mainstream Western media to properly inform the public about the reality of what has been happening in the Middle East since the Arab Spring began.

Thursday, 5 January 2012

The Leveson Inquiry is an ongoing series of government-sponsored hearings designed to investigate the standards of practice (and malpractice) within the British news media, focusing particularly on the allegations that newspapers connected with Rupert Murdoch's News International organisation obtained stories by illegally hacking into people's mobile phones, including those of celebrities and a teenage kidnap and murder victim.

Now, an "alternative Leveson Inquiry" is being set up by an Islamic TV channel in order to investigate the way in which British media report on Muslim and Islamic affairs. The Islam Channel is planning to appoint a judge with an independent panel of assessors - just like Leveson - to carry out the inquiry.

The "Alternative Leveson" will examine "the possible causal effect between
media coverage and social attitudes towards Muslims. It will also assess
any links between media coverage and subsequent government policy", with the implication being that the hearings will likely find the British media to be guilty of propagating Islamophobia.

Let's bring things back to reality for a minute. The Islam Channel has in the past broadcast programmes hosted by members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation that British politicians have repeatedly called to be banned, to attack "man-made law" and advocate the implementation of sharia.

The channel has been accused of giving a platform to Anwar al-Awlaki,
the extremist cleric killed by an American drone strike in September, who had links to al-Qaeda and to the man
charged with trying to blow up a transatlantic jet on Christmas Day 2009. The channel last year carried adverts for a box set of DVDs of Awlaki's
sermons and for at least two events at which the cleric was due to be
the star speaker via a video link.

Furthermore, the channel's chief
executive officer, Mohamed Ali Harrath, has been on an Interpol wanted
list since 1992, after his native Tunisia accused him of attempting to
create "an Islamic state by means of armed revolutionary violence".

A 2010 report
by the primarily Muslim "Quilliam Foundation" revealed that the channel is
running programmes saying that women should not refuse their husbands'
sexual advances, should not leave the house without their husbands'
permission, and that if they wear makeup, they are prostitutes.

It has also endorsed polygamy, declared that the majority of people in Hell will be women, and been found by Ofcom to have breached the broadcasting code on impartiality during elections, and for broadcasting an unbalanced programme about the ownership of Jerusalem.

Monday, 2 January 2012

It is remarkable, and surely not coincidental, that when you look at the behaviour of Muslim communities around the world today, and you compare areas which have different Muslim populations, you see startling similarities with the behaviour of Muhammad. There are four key stages in the process of “Islamising” a society, and these all follow Muhammad's example:

1. When Muhammad first started preaching Islam in Mecca, and when he later emigrated to Medina, when he still had very few followers, he preached relative tolerance and tried to call people to his religion peacefully. Today, in countries like the USA, where the Muslim population is very small, we see that they are relatively benign compared to the Muslim populations of some other countries, as they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local populace. Phony "moderate" Muslim advocacy groups spread the message that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and publicly scoff at the idea that any Muslims are engaged in efforts to transform the legal system of their host country by any means - even as said "moderate" groups push exactly this agenda.

2. When those to whom Muhammad was preaching – particularly the Jews – proved stubbornly resistant, he started to become more hostile towards them, and began to make demands that they accede to Islamic customs, claiming that all those who refused were evil and hated Islam and all Muslims. Today, Muslim communities in countries such as the UK and the rest of Europe are alsomakingsimilardemandsfor their host countries to bend over backwards for the sake of Muslims (which the dhimmi leaders often acquiesce to), and they label anyone who does not want their society to become Islamic a “bigot”, an “Islamophobe” and a racist. They use these terms deliberately in order to frighten people away from resisting the spread of the Islamic political system, since they know that many people in the West would rather die horribly than do anything that would make them appear to be intolerant.

3. Once Muhammad had consolidated his power and knew that the other religions in Arabia were not going to submit to his rule willingly, he declared war on them. He waged jihad against his own former tribe, the Quraysh, for many years, eventually defeating them and converting them to Islam. The three main Jewish tribes in the region were all exterminated or enslaved. Every other pagan tribe in Arabia was converted to Islam by force. Today, countries with significantly higher Muslim populations, such as Nigeria, the Philippines and Kenya are witness to frequent violent rioting and mass chaos caused by Muslim mobs and militias. The fighting in these countries has turned physical and the Muslims there are much more open about their rejection of non-Muslim societies and their desire to impose sharia law on them by any means necessary.

4. After Muhammad conquered Mecca, he had successfully won control over all of Arabia, and began to impose a tyrannical rule over the people he governed. Several of those he considered his enemies were hunted down and murdered, and Islamic law was brutally imposed. Today, countries which are virtually 100% Muslim, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, run what amount to almost fully-fledged sharia states, where persecution of non-Muslim minorities and women is commonplace, and barbaric punishments such as stoning and amputation are carried out.

That these four stages can be observed fairly consistently among Muslim populations all over the world is no coincidence. Anyone who studies Islam can understand the connection between the behaviour of Muhammad and the behaviour of the Muslim world today, and can make accurate predictions about what will be the next step in the process.

It is for this reason that the study of Islam and sharia in the West is so important. One cannot defeat a threat doctrine one does not understand. From accurate knowledge, efficient policy will naturally follow.

Sunday, 1 January 2012

Yes, I've been gone a long time. This can be attributed partly to the preparations for my wedding in early October (to one woman, not four), and my subsequent two-week honeymoon in Mexico. After that, I had little time for blogging, for various reasons, but my New Year's Resolution was to start it up again, so here I am.

I will be posting the usual mixture of news analysis and debunking of apologetics in the days and weeks to come, but in the mean time, below is a cartoon I saw recently that does what all good cartoons do: tell it like it is, in a humerous way.

The Biblical characters Adam and Eve appear - as Muslims - in the Qur'an. Here's how they might have looked: